Crunch Time
January 16th, 2010 by SteveI apologise for my lack of regular postings since the end of the holiday season. It is the end of Semester and we are down into “crunch time” for most of my students, and helping them to obtain credits and doing my marking both trump writing about a deplorably inept Maple Leafs squad.
While recently pathetic offensively, the true problems have always lay in goal and on the defensive end of the equation. Friday night’s game against Washington, while apparently another point in the contiguous Leaf descent into failure as a team, actually lay outside the norm for a number of reasons though.
The Leafs out shot the Caps, which the Leafs have normally done this season. The Leafs went down by a score of 2-0 (and eventually a lot more), which they have done far too often this year. The Leafs couldn’t stop their opponent’s power play, and they couldn’t really do much on their own, which again, are both hallmarks of this season.
The distinction I would draw after the game is which players were being most victimized. Ian White and Alexei Ponikarovsky, the Leafs two most reliable defensive players 5 on 5, had horrible games defensively. White was on the ice for 5 of the Capitals 6 goals, while Ponikarovsky was present for 4 of them. White ended up being a -4 on the night, while Poni was -3. Ponikarovsky as a result is no longer a plus player, and White has lost his lofty perch as the Leafs top +/- player to rookie Carl Gunnarsson (who continues to impress by the way).
In a more positive light, youngsters Gunnarsson, Kulemin, and Bozak somehow remained even on a night when the Leafs proved more porous than swiss cheese, and all three players saw over 19 minutes in ice time. Ron Wilson is obviously pleased with their level of play. Kessel played over 20 minutes and was a -1, but he continued his point streak with another assist, giving him 5 points in his last 4 games (all assists).
Unfortunately the premiere scorer on the Leafs continued to be snake bitten and clanged yet another shot off the post. Speaking of which, had the Leafs been able to bury their chances, this game could easily have gone another way, as - by my count - there were at least 3 posts hit by the boys in blue and white, and another two goals were called back (albeit entirely legitimately), giving them an additional 5 legitimate opportunities to score.
This game was the Alex Ovechkin show, and the Leafs really had no defensive answer to the Caps top line, but they actually produced offensive chances pretty well for a tired team playing a back to back against one of the best teams in the East. If I’m Washington, I’d be pretty worried about my defensive short comings going forward, no matter what Pierre Maguire and Gord Miller had to say about the subject.
If anyone heard TSN analysts say anything negative about the Capitals last night, please remind me of it, because I was actually put to sleep at two separate points listening to the moronic, virtual fellation of the NHL’s premiere offensive juggernaut.
So again, in my effort to address both positives and negatives of the Leafs, let me recap. Negatives: yet another loss to an Eastern Conference team; no defensive ability to stop the other team’s top scorers; best defensive players victimized repeatedly; goaltending continued to let in too many goals; penalty kill continued to collapse; inability to produce enough goals. Positives: younger Leafs continued to develop well; offensive chances were abundant; Phil Kessel continued his point streak (which will probably get mention in the main stream media in a week when it hits 8 games or something); Tyler Bozak played another solid game; Jonas Gustavsson wasn’t victimized by Ovechkin. Ok I’m really reaching on that last one, but I think at this point resting Gustavsson is a good idea, especially against top flight competition.
We’re fast approaching the Olympic break, and subsequently the NHL trade deadline. I expect at least 3 Leafs to change teams, but admit that the trade market seems slow at the moment. We could be looking at a situation where only 1 or 2 trade teams. David wrote an interesting piece on the main page which explored the fact that some NHL franchises lack offensive depth on their top 2 lines. The Leafs, despite regular refrains from the media, do actually possess a plethora of players that would fit on a 2nd line on most good NHL teams quite well.
Lee Stempniak, Alexei Ponikarovsky, Niklas Hagman, Matt Stajan, and Jason Blake, could all do a good job for a playoff team if given the opportunity. Of those five skaters, three are on expiring contracts, and will likely be looking at a chance to go on a run in the playoffs. Last year the trading partners were Buffalo and the NY Rangers, but this season I’d anticipate something different.
Ponikarovsky and Hagman would be the 5th and 6th highest forward scorers on the San Jose Sharks, but they play fewer minutes per game than the top 5 forwards on the team. They would be the 3rd and 4th highest goal scorers for the Sharks, immediately after Marleau and Heatley.
They would be virtually tied for the scoring lead on the Phoenix Coyotes, and Hagman has played for Coyotes coach Dave Tippet successfully in the past.
Ponikarovsky, Stempniak, Stajan and Hagman would look pretty solid playing for the likes of Pittsburgh, with superior numbers to the likes of Matt Cooke, Chris Kunitz, and Ruslan Fedotenko, who are all slowing down with age. If I were the Penguins and I wanted a chance to repeat, I’d strongly consider trading Kunitz and Fedotenko for Ponikarovsky and Stempniak, thus freeing up some cap space to fill holes after this season.
If I was Chicago, I might be interested in dealing the likes of Andrew Ladd (an RFA) for Ponikarovsky (a UFA) if only due to the experience and better production of Ponikarovsky and the fact that I can walk away from the UFA without being pinched in an RFA scramble (which is inevitable at the end of this season anyway).
I’m not suggesting any of these deals are likely, but they do make a certain modicum of sense from an outside perspective. Let me know where you guys stand on the whole idea of trades and who you’d like to see go.
Posted in Game Analysis, Player Analysis, Prospects
16 Responses to “Crunch Time”
By Draybo
on Jan 16, 2010
Steve, read about Edmonton having serious cap concerns next year: Gagner and Cogliano due significant raises as RFA’s; Eberle, Pajaarvi - Svenson, and potentially a top three pick this year knocking on the door; and a plethora of long term contracts weighing them down. Think they’d be willing to part with a couple forwards for expiring contracts?
I’m thinking Penner or O’Sullivan might be decent pickups. Not sure I’d want Horcoff or Moreau due to the contract lengths / age.
By Steve
on Jan 17, 2010
I would like to see Penner on the Leafs, and I don’t think Burke would have any problem bringing him to the club.
O’Sullivan has had an atrocious season, and aside from one good game against the Leafs, I wouldn’t touch him with a 10 foot pole. He’s horribly overpaid given his production, and he would basically be more of the same (if not worse) for the Leafs.
I do think Edmonton will think long and hard about dealing some of their larger contracts for expiring deals, but I’m not sure they’re ready to drop their top level talent.
We’ll see, but they’re locked in on Khabibulin for a while unfortunately, and they need something that works in goal before they improve. It’ll be interesting to see what they do as the season moves forwards.
By BCapp
on Jan 17, 2010
I can’t see Edmonton moving Penner. Other players on their team sure, but not Penner, who has finally come into his own.
I imagine they’ll try to move some of their D, who are weighing them down (financially)
By glgbill
on Jan 17, 2010
Some random thoughts…
Obviously, I’m hopeful for a solid shake-up, one that adds picks and prospects into the mix. Despite some nice off-season additions, we simply don’t have enough top flight talent developing right now.
The names mentioned — Lee Stempniak, Alexei Ponikarovsky, Niklas Hagman, Matt Stajan, and Jason Blake (among others) — could all be dealt with little or no long-term impact, and might bring modest to decent returns. Plus, 2-3 deals would open up spots that younger players could earn through hard work. The carrot at the end of the stick, so to speak. And acknowledging the risk in dealing recently signed free agents, someone still needs to figure out what the hell is wrong on the back end.
On the youth front, a few 2nd, 3rd and 4th rounders would be welcome additions, as would a prospect or two that may have fallen from grace in his organization. Sometimes the change of scenery works and it would be incumbent on Burke and his scouts to find such a gem. The other chip to play is salary, as we could absorb some to further a deal. I’d like to see another goalie prospect added via trade (not to mention another added at next year’s draft).
In looking at the teams mentioned above, another player worth exploring might be Peter Mueller. I’m not sure what’s happened, but he clearly hasn’t developed as hoped, and could still project as a first line center if things turned around. Another team with an apparent surplus of youth would be the Kings, although Lombardi will likely save everything for a run at Kovalchuk. A secondary deal might be possible, though.
I’m still of the opinion that draft choices have gone up significantly in value the past few years, and it will be much tougher to add quality (even mid-round) picks than many people expect. Perhaps, though, we’ll find a partner or two willing to play.
By Steve
on Jan 17, 2010
I agree that the general perception is that draft picks have somehow increased in value, but I’m not sure that’s the case league wide amongst GM’s. I think what we’re referring to is the perception amongst Leafs fans, which tends to permeate most of our ideas about how the rest of the NHL is operating.
Let’s be honest, the teams developing their own talent consistently have had mixed success. You still need to add via free agency and trades if you hope to make it to the promised land.
Cases in point = Buffalo and Nashville. Both teams have made the playoffs fairly succesfully, and with recent regularity, but they both tend to drop out in early rounds and are seemingly hamstrung by an inability to sign top flight free agents.
I think the message Leaf fans are finally absorbing is the fact that a team needs to build it’s OWN talent base through drafting and development, and then they may have to look elsewhere for the pieces that put you over the top.
Why is that? (I realize a number of you already are aware of this but I’m speaking to those that may not be) Generally speaking I would say that there is a limited amount of top flight talent. The only ways to obtain that talent are to either draft it, or trade/sign it. San Jose traded for and signed half their top players, but their supporting cast is all locally developed. Calgary did the same. Boston did the same. Pittsburgh did the reverse and drafted/developed their core, but they’ve filled in the rest with a mix of signings and trades. Carolina and Tampa followed the same model as Pittsburgh. New Jersey has always developed it’s own talent, but it helps to have Brodeur back there and a rigid as hell system.
Really I think that’s what Leaf fans wish the Leafs became - without thinking of some of the consequences. The New Jersey Devils are a model organization from a drafting and development standpoint. They also almost never have to trade draft picks, and they make excellent use of the ones they have, in addition to signing undrafted free agents.
It’s sort of scary to think the Devils have players like Mattias Tedenby coming along to join the likes of Zajac, Parise, and Elias.
If the Leafs can stick to their guns and DEVELOP their younger players consistently, then I don’t think the quality will be such a big question in a few years. Stay the course is all I ask.
By BCapp
on Jan 17, 2010
Of our expiring (UFA) contracts up front:
Stempniak (2.5 mil)
Poni (2.1)
Stajan (1.75)
Primeau (1.4)
Mayers (1.3)
Realistically we won’t be able to move Primeau or Mayers, but we may be able/willing to move Grabs and Hagman.
So that leaves us with 5 players. I will be disappointed if we move less than 3.
I also wouldn’t mind moving Mitchell who is an RFA, but he is not trade deadline bait (but could be included in a package deal).
I would hope to get at least 3 draft picks (including at least 1 2nd) and a prospect.
I would also like to see Primeau resigned at under a mil. i think he makes a solid 3/4 center. (though his health is a little quesitonable).
In regards to defense, the way i see it, one of Kaberle or White (or I guess Finger but that won’t happen) has to be moved.
White is going to require minimum 3 mill and probably 3.5-4. If we sign him to that we would have 6 guys making top 4 money. With enough depth in the minors pushing for a spot on this team, I would say one has to be moved.
Cheers
By BCapp
on Jan 17, 2010
btw if White were to get 3.5, the leafs 7 D (with bonuses) would look like this
Komi (4.5)
Kaberle (4.25)
Beauch (3.8)
Finger (3.5)
White (3.5)
Schenn (2.975)
Gunny (0.8)
~23.5 mil
Considering that is 7 men of a roughly 22 man roster (20 players +2 scratches) that is quite pricey.
By Casey
on Jan 17, 2010
Moving Grabs really wouldn’t be a good idea at this point, because there isn’t much on the free agent market to take his place.
When Tomas Plekanec is one of the UFAs who will command the most attention, then you know the crop is poor.
And wow, don’t I wish that we were managed more like the New Jersey Devils…
As good as Kaberle is, he’s really one of our only avenues to get back a high-end prospect or a first-rounder.
Question for y’all on the Kaberle front: If we move him, will Burke need to go out and get another defenseman or will the D be fine in giving Schenn and Gunnarsson more responsibility? (Assuming we keep White)
By Karina
on Jan 17, 2010
“If anyone heard TSN analysts say anything negative about the Capitals last night, please remind me of it, because I was actually put to sleep at two separate points listening to the moronic, virtual fellation of the NHL’s premiere offensive juggernaut.”
Line of the year, Steve. Line of the year.
By Steve
on Jan 18, 2010
To be fair to Caps fans, it’s not like they need much D when Ovechkin is registering 14 points in a 6 game span, while going +10. He’s pretty damn amazing.
That being said, what happens in the playoffs when they need another offensive option? Something tells me Backstrom will be the other guy that needs to step up large (a la Malkin). Green and Semin don’t seem like ones to count on in the playoffs to me. In fact I think Green would be a liability out there… but that’s just me.
By BCapp
on Jan 18, 2010
Ehh Green doesn’t have enough playoff experience to say he is a playoff choker…
He’s still so young. Heck the whole team is.
By glgbill
on Jan 18, 2010
@Steve,
Hope you’re right that other GMs don’t value picks as much as I think they do. Truly, I do, because it would benefit the Leafs. But I’m not sure how much that observation is driven by the perceptions we Leaf fans hold. Instead, I think it’s more about an economic logic informing such decisions within a cap environment.
Great points (and examples) about the multiple ways to build a team. No strategy guarantees success. You wrote: “I think the message Leaf fans are finally absorbing is the fact that a team needs to build it’s OWN talent base through drafting and development, and then they may have to look elsewhere for the pieces that put you over the top.” The key word in that point is the word “then.” Those who’ve criticized Burke seem to be concerned that Toronto has not done enough yet to build its own talent base before looking elsewhere. It’s not the concern that Toronto will suck for a period, but more that Burke lacks the patience to “stay the course,” as you suggest.
Personally, I think Burke has done a reasonable job so far supplementing a poor prospect group, but overreached in attempting to compete for a playoff spot this year. Hopefully, he recognizes his mistake and is willing to redouble his efforts to acquire and develop young talent. Unfortunately, it may be more expensive in the cap world than some might think.
Again, I will happily be proven wrong. The trade deadline will certainly tell the tale.
By Peter de Chatham
on Jan 18, 2010
I remember reading over the summer that Burke had doubled the number of scouts the Leafs have. I can’t find the story, but I think the Leafs added both amateur and professional scouts - though I’d like to see where they are relative to other NHL teams in scouting staff size.
Anyway, if that’s true, then we may yet see the Leafs be able to outspend their competition, even in the salary cap world. All those extra professional scouts should be able to properly assess new talent - so maybe, for example, we end up with a winner in Paradis after all.
And in the coming trade market, maybe we can do a good job picking prospects when haggling over the price of Ponikarovsky et al.
By Steve
on Jan 18, 2010
Peter - you are correct that the Leafs increased the size of their scouting department. It is now comparable in size to that of New Jersey, who to my knowledge have the highest total (my recollection is hazy but I wrote about it in the fall).
glbill - to your point about Burke lacking patience to “stay the course” I find that a bit laughable. The focus of criticism sent his way so far seems to be the inept squad he’s put together this season, despite the large number of rookies and sophomores in his line up. It’s a tad ridiculous to evaluate a GM as having no patience when he’s traded two UFA’s for picks, brought in two more veteran UFA’s, and then gone out and signed a bunch of European and college free agents to go along with his draft choices.
Trading picks for Kessel has a lot more to do with taking opportunities as they are presented. Striking while the iron is hot so to speak. People need to realize how rare players like Kessel are. The fact that more than one of them exists does not preclude the fact that there are still fewer of them than there are teams in the NHL.
There is zero guarantee that a player like Taylor Hall develops into another Phil Kessel. There is also no guarantee that you would find a player like Kessel on the free agent market anytime soon, and all indications are that you won’t.
If people take a long term view, they need to look at where this team will be in a few years, not right now.
By glgbill
on Jan 18, 2010
Steve - Remember, it was Brian Burke who said this team would compete for a playoff spot this year. In hindsight, that’s the most “laughable” thing anyone has said. For a team just entering a multi-year rebuild, was it really necessary (or even smart) to prioritize the playoffs this season?
Oh, wait. It’s a ‘retool’, not a rebuild. Right.
Honestly, laughable or not, Burke himself created these questions about his patience and commitment to a proper rebuild.
In fairness, though, I’ve repeatedly complimented Burke for his investments in scouting and development, and for supplementing a poor prospect base with college free agents and Gustavsson. I’m also hopeful he can utilize Toronto’s cap space to help acquire picks and prospects, although my expectations are tempered here. Time will tell. But I absolutely give Burke credit in these areas.
P.S. As for the Kessel-versus-picks question (since you bring that up), my personal concern was never about the trade, simply the price paid to acquire him. Dealing the 2010 first was never an issue, so I’m not sure about Taylor Hall’s relevance. It was the added first in 2011 that raised concern.
By Marco
on Jan 19, 2010
I think Washington could really use another defenseman…if Nashville is open to trading Hamhuis at the deadline he would be a solid 2-way guy to add.